While cannabis-infused foods are not yet legal at the federal level, an increasing number of states allow for edibles, beverages, and other foods that contain THC and CBD as ingredients.

As cannabis becomes legal in more and more states across the U.S. and as the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) moves to reclassify it as a schedule 3 substance—a move that would make it a less dangerous drug, but not legalize it for recreational use—food manufacturers need to ensure that their production practices are sound and validated. This is why it’s vital for these companies to meet food safety guidelines and focus on quality when creating new products.

Kathy Knutson, PhD, a food microbiologist, chair emeritus for the education committee for the National Cannabis Industry Association, and president of Kathy Knutson Food Safety Consulting, is seeing more cannabis beverages in the market as consumers grow more comfortable with drinking those products. However, edibles remain the primary focus for most manufacturers. “Really, any food could be an edible,” she said. “In Canada, meat products are now allowed. I’ve heard about ice cream, taffy, popcorn, chocolate, and many savory bakery products. There’s a lot of work being done on the food side.”

While she appreciates the entrepreneurial spirit in the industry, she notes that food safety may not be the first thing manufacturers think about when creating and releasing their products. “My colleagues and I are always pushing those in the cannabis industry to have a dedicated quality manager and for the company to recognize how important it is to implement quality management systems and build a savvy food safety plan,” Knutson said. “Everything that’s expected of the food industry should be expected in the cannabis industry.”

Roberta Wilson, co-founder of California-based cannabis edible company Dr. Norm’s, which manufactures brownies, cereal treats, and cookies sold at more than 300 compliant California dispensaries, understands the importance of adhering to all food safety regulations. “Being a cannabis-infused food company does not in any way alter the way we operate compared to a traditional food company,” she said. “All of our employees have to go through food safety training and adhere to all applicable regulations.”

She explained that cannabis-infused food products have food safety standards and regulations that are even more stringent and challenging to comply with than traditional food safety regulations.

Chad Frey, owner of a Washington D.C.-based cannabis-derived consumer goods company with three brands—Flowerz for gummies and mints, Karma for caramels and baked goods, and Anytime for infused seltzers—noted that he takes food safety very seriously. “We’re constantly staying at the forefront of R&D, new scientific developments, and leading studies with universities to explore adverse effects,” he said. “We utilize existing food safety regulations and third-party analytical testing with DEA-registered labs. This ensures that the labeling of products matches the accuracy in potency and packaging.”

Compliance Challenges

Pat Bird, cannabis lead for bioMérieux, a diagnostics company that provides food quality and safety testing solutions for the cannabis food and beverage industries, noted one of the most concerning issues with the cannabis industry is the lack of consistent and standardized measures for ensuring compliance with food safety regulations. “Good manufacturing procedures, risk analysis, and hazard controls have been a part of food testing for over two decades, and these principles are not universally adopted within the cannabis industry,” he said. “This can lead to products produced in facilities without proper environmental monitoring programs and using production practices that are not sufficient to protect consumers from contaminants.”

He explained that infused product testing is often performed by compliance laboratories that lack the experience and expertise to fully analyze food products. “The expertise required to navigate inherent challenges associated with commonly infused food matrices (chocolate, gummies, beverages) is not always present in compliance testing, as labs are built quickly with a focus on flower analysis,” Bird said. “As more complex matrices are introduced, methods must be further validated to obtain accurate results.”

Different Protocols

There are several differences in food safety protocols between traditional food processing and cannabis-infused food production. “The biggest difference with cannabis vs. traditional food manufacturing is that weight would not affect food safety in traditional manufacturing,” Wilson said. “In cannabis, since weight determines the dosage of the product, we have to be meticulous about weighing every single piece of edible we manufacture to ensure that it is the stated dosage, making it ‘safe’ for consumption.”

The law provides for a 10% variance on dosing, which requires adherence to very rigid manufacturing practices involving weighing every piece of product before it gets packaged for distribution. Meanwhile, with traditional food manufacturing, only package weight needs to be adhered to.

Another main difference is that within the food industry, testing is performed from farm-to-fork. “Raw materials, environmental monitoring, and finished products are all evaluated in a risk-based approach to minimize the chance that hazards may be present,” Bird said. “For cannabis-infused products, only the minimal required compliance testing on finished product is performed, which can increase public health risks associated with contamination from the environment or in the raw materials of the product.”

Lab testing required by law in cannabis also screens for pesticides, heavy metals, and other harmful substances that traditional food testing is not subjected to. If products fail lab testing, the entire batch becomes unusable.

While regulations differ among states, manufacturers need to understand the basics to ensure they are compliant. “It is very challenging to navigate the regulatory landscape in the cannabis business,” Wilson said. “The regulations are different in every state, making it like setting up an entirely new business in every state. I can’t think of a single other industry where this is the case.”

Navigating the patchwork regulatory landscape can be very difficult for food manufacturers. “Multi-state operators—producers active in more than one state—often implement separate QA programs at each facility, which adds complexity to managing from a corporate standpoint,” Bird said. “These groups often rely on a senior regulatory advisor to help with navigation, but these individuals traditionally have a cannabis background, not a food safety background. This process helps ensure compliance with regulations but can result in less focus on implementing traditional food safety procedures.”

Thankfully, in many states, cannabis commissions will directly engage with manufacturers to proactively work toward better production and quality procedures.

Working with Suppliers

It isn’t uncommon for manufacturers to find issues working with suppliers because cannabis is still federally illegal. “We have had issues with being able to buy directly from large suppliers through wholesale accounts, as they don’t want to sell to cannabis companies,” Wilson said. “As such, we are forced to buy most products at retail. This is a huge issue with COGS, as they could be much lower if purchased through wholesale agreements.”

Knutson notes that while a few big players deal with everything in the supply chain the same way as normal food companies, the majority of cannabis manufacturers are still very small, operating more on the level of a restaurant kitchen or a pilot plant with small production. “So it’s a different scenario, and these companies are more likely to go to big box stores to get their ingredients,” she says. “That’s more common. Every cannabis company is still doing their product development and fine-tuning recipes, and flavors are evolving. They don’t have the consistency of purchasing, but that will change as the companies grow.”

What’s Ahead

Cannabis-infused producers that fail to invest in a strong quality assurance (QA) plan often have the most difficulty producing consistent and safe products.

Bird notes three goals that can help producers overcome pitfalls: identifying a manufacturing director with experience in food production; increasing quality control testing of raw materials and finished products beyond the bare minimum compliance requirements; and establishing robust environmental monitoring programs.

He believes a singular standardized approach that incorporates many of the GMP principles from pertinent industries (dietary supplements, food, pharma), while establishing guidance specific to the cannabis industry, will help streamline how companies can manufacture safer products for consumers in the future.

Even with the potential for federal legalization of cannabis-infused foods in the future, many predict food safety regulations won’t change for what will become a larger market. “It would just mean much greater ease of manufacturing product in one central location with the ability to sell it across state lines,” Wilson says. “Scaling up in a central manufacturing facility would pose the same issues as any traditional food manufacturing facility in adhering to food safety regulations.”

The post Essential Tips for Ensuring Food Safety and Quality in Cannabis-Infused Products appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Food safety has always been crucial, but with the rise of pathogens and challenges from pests and chemicals, it’s vital for food and beverage manufacturers to have strong food safety leaders. This has led to a strong emphasis on developing the food safety leaders of the future.

Jill Stuber, founder of Catalyst, a coaching and leadership development company for the food industry, and vice chair of the Developing Food Safety Professionals Group of the International Association of Food Protection (IAFP), says that possessing solid technical skills is essential in the food safety space. “We’ve seen people improve their work outcomes and get promoted when they practice and adopt soft skills such as self awareness, creating safe spaces, and leading with curiosity,” she says. “Leaders who empower team members and invest in personal and professional growth are more likely to enhance their career growth prospects, as they will be known for growing competent, dynamic, and innovative teams.”

Takashi Nakamura, PhD, vice president of food safety for Fresh Del Monte, highlights three areas of focus in building any career: attitude, aptitude, and attendance. All are necessary to become a strong food safety leader. “Resiliency is key when it comes to food safety, since the next outbreak or recall is just around the corner,” he adds. “Our days really begin on Friday since testing begins on Monday, so the ability to manage oneself both mentally and physically in a 24–7 environment is that we can never control. This world is that of pathogens, and it’s important to know that we inhabit their world, and not the other way around. There will be more tough days than easy days in our business and function.”

Aptitude should be a top characteristic in a food safety leader, and candidates should build themselves up as subject matter experts. “Establishing credibility and empowering others in this type of job function requires constant vigilance in developing your skill sets and competencies,” Dr. Nakamura says. “Don’t settle for what you have achieved, but rather look for the opportunity to build via a disciplined and rigorous program—regardless of the degrees you have or the training you’ve achieved. The world is constantly evolving and adapting, and as stewards of critical functions in an organization, we as professionals need to do the same.”

He also notes the importance of regular on-site visits that include visiting the floor, walking the fields, and touring the facilities. “This function is not one where you stay behind a desk in an office,” Dr. Nakamura says. “You will need to see, touch, and hear what is going on in your operations. Be present to those other functions and engage. Be engaged in associations, stay in touch with universities and institutes, and establish and expand your network.”

Food safety is a rapidly evolving field, so professionals must stay ahead of emerging trends and technologies to enhance their career growth. Continuous education and training are critical. “Professionals can stay ahead of emerging trends by regularly reading industry publications, research studies, and reports related to food safety issues and events,” says Jorge Hernandez, vice president of quality assurance for the Wendy’s Company, who has over three decades of experience as a food safety leader. “They can also pursue additional training, certifications, attend workshops, webinars, conferences, and/or taking online courses related to food safety. This will help them enhance their knowledge and skills in the field.”

Key Skills

Jennifer McEntire, PhD, founder of Food Safety Strategy and former chief food safety and regulatory officer at the International Fresh Produce Association, shares that future food leaders should possess strong foundational knowledge of food safety hazards and critical thinking skills to determine when these hazards become risks. “Knowing how to do the research to gather this information to make data-driven decisions is critical,” she says. “It’s not just analytical skills though; it’s important to listen and learn from others. Leaders also have a natural curiosity.”

Hernandez says that essential skills for aspiring food safety leaders start with building credibility. “This is a non-negotiable for aspiring leaders,” he adds. “Your credibility is the bedrock of leadership and essential to your success in any organization. You must have a deep knowledge and understanding of food safety science that drives the food safety standards and regulations. It is the foundation on which trust is built, and it is what allows any aspiring food safety leader to influence others to engage on the pursuit of common goals.”

Effective communication is another key skill that helps people advance in the field. “From gaining management support for budgets, programs, or changes to the status quo, to being able to educate and train staff on the importance of food safety, food safety protocols and communicating with regulatory agencies, an aspiring food safety leader must seek to be an effective communicator who can clearly and concisely communicate the food safety vision, ideas, changes, and the benefits those bring,” Hernandez says.

Dr. Nakamura advises workers to be results oriented early in their careers and continuously develop their skills, and think of themselves as a brand and taking stock to determine how to succeed. “Get solid external certified basic trainings in HACCP, GMP, traceability (FSMA 204), produce safety rule (and its requirements such as PCQI) if going into the produce field,” he says. “Sanitation should be one of your key areas of focus, as we don’t have enough great sanitation trained individuals. Commercial food sanitation has very well respected and world renown training certification courses. Going back to being a subject matter expert, develop yourself to be a specialist in an area such as sanitation, microbiology, etc.”

Critical thinking is another important trait of an aspiring leader: Be able to seek the proper information, to analyze data to identify potential food safety risks, and to develop preventive solutions to ensure the safety of the food supply chain. “They must also have courage,” Hernandez adds. “This can be one of the hardest things for any leader, yet it is essential for any aspiring food safety leader. As an old friend once told me, ‘If you want everyone to like you, do not go into food safety; go sell ice cream.’ Having the courage to speak up, make difficult decisions, taking responsibility for results, apologizing for mistakes, or giving bad news is not easy, but it’s a defining characteristic of true food safety leaders.”

Dr. Nakamura recommends initiating and driving research programs with universities and institutes for your organization. “External engagement with key educational and research universities will foster you and your team’s ecosystem and network,” he says. “This activity will drive two areas—it will keep you in touch and abreast of new technologies and how the next generation are looking at current and future state problems and issues; and it will allow you to develop a network of like-minded professionals that can assist you in finding a solution to your organization’s problems, potentially being an active resource and toolbox for future talent needs.”

Ambitious food safety leaders must also embrace continuous learning and improvement. As foodborne pathogens evolve and the environment changes, science provides new insights. It is imperative for future food safety leaders to stay current on the latest trends, technologies, tools, and best practices to continuously improve their knowledge and skills.

The Power of Networking

A key strategy for career advancement is networking. Building a strong network of industry professionals and participating in professional organizations will help you stay informed of emerging trends and opportunities.

Networking allows professionals to connect with industry peers, experts, and potential employers, expanding their professional contacts and career advancement opportunities. By attending industry events, conferences, and networking functions, professionals can build relationships, exchange ideas, and stay informed about emerging trends and opportunities in the food safety sector. “Networking can also help professionals access hidden job opportunities, referrals, and recommendations from within their professional network,” Hernandez says. “By building strong relationships with industry, academia, and regulatory contacts, professionals can increase their visibility, credibility, and chances of securing job interviews and career advancement opportunities.”

Hernandez also suggests that aspiring leaders seek mentorships with seasoned professionals. “Mentors can offer career advice, feedback, and support to help professionals set goals, make informed decisions, and navigate career transitions in the food safety sector,” he says. “They can also provide valuable insights into industry trends, job opportunities, and professional development pathways.”

When deciding on the perfect job in food safety, Dr. McEntire suggests talking with many people in food safety and adjacent fields to learn about their career paths and current roles to determine what’s most interesting.

Ultimately, food safety professionals should carefully assess these factors and conduct thorough research to select a food sector that aligns with their interests, goals, and values, setting the stage for a rewarding and satisfying career in the food safety industry.

The post Top Career Growth Tips for Food Safety Professionals appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Approximately 600 million people globally fall victim to food poisoning annually; of those, 420,000 succumb to foodborne illnesses, according to the World Health Organization. Improper handling during food production and the packaging process can introduce bacteria, parasites, and viruses that cause foodborne diseases. Those in the food industry should learn and practice mandatory safety precautions to reduce food contamination and poisoning. Food safety is a set of practices for aiding in the safe processing, handling, packaging, and distribution of food products.

Whether you have a multi-billion-dollar food production industry, a roadside kiosk, or a mini-bakery, you should invest in employee food safety training. Food safety training is available in in-person, real-time, and online training sessions. Real-time food safety training presents a one-on-one virtual connection between the trainer and the trainee.

A food safety training session facilitated through real-time communication lets the trainer offer a real-time presentation of the live activities from the trainer’s end. The sessions involve using session initiation protocol (SIP) and real-time transport protocol (RTP) to create and sustain communication between the involved parties.

The Importance of Effective Communication

Effective communication fosters a seamless connection between trainers and trainees during complex and long food safety training sessions. Real-time communications systems establish uninterrupted food safety training without message alteration or confusion. In this rewarding learning atmosphere, each party feels satisfied and engaged. There are many reasons to get everyone in your company trained to handle food safely, including:

• Improving the handling and maintenance of machines;
• Increasing sanitization and cleanliness of components;
• Reducing food packaging leaks;
• Reducing food contamination and poisoning issues;
• Improving the quality and health of food products delivered to
  clients; and
• Boosting brand image and reputation.

The average human has a relatively low attention span of 8.25 seconds, and effective communication is the key to extending these short spans. Boring safety training sessions could reduce a learner’s attention span, so trainers need to communicate effectively to get trainees fully engaged and boost their attention spans.

There are no boredom issues during training sessions in which the speaker and audience communicate effectively. Trainees will ask the right questions, and the trainer will answer them correctly, facilitating efficient learning.

Training sessions in which resourceful communication is the center of everything foster problem solving, active listening, nonverbal communication, confidence, and questioning.

Top Benefits of Communication During Food Safety Training

Sometimes, employees may not properly respond to food safety-related hazards. Training informs workers and boosts their confidence levels so they can raise alarms when they detect potential hazards. Properly trained employees understand the basic protocols to handle food during packaging and distribution to reduce the potential for leakage and contamination.

Communication is an indispensable tool in food safety training and determines the learning curves of each involved party. Food handler training increases knowledge and equips learners to address future food safety issues more easily. Learners can only grasp food safety protocols and management systems when the training programs are communicated effectively.

When a food safety trainer passes information effectively to the target audience without leaving holes, they help them better understand the key points of interest while preparing them to practice what they learn in the future.

Training programs with clear and easy-to-understand training materials enable workers to properly comprehend lifelong and new safety practices. Proficient communication can help learners understand and complete their training courses much faster while increasing the success rates of the training programs.

Food industries should adopt training programs that use clear and feasible videos and photos, infographics formatting, and all-inclusive training materials. Message recipients feel more at ease when training messages are presented knowledgeably and confidently.

Best Practices

To reduce misunderstandings, real-time food safety training supports key facets of communication, such as facial expressions, eye contact, and body language. As a trainer offering real-time food safety training programs, it integrates engagement, logistics, scope, etiquette, and facilitation. Training focused on these fundamental aspects helps with troubleshooting issues, implementing safety strategies, and gives insights on planning.

Proper scope and preplanning: Although virtual training sessions cannot replace in-person interactions, proper preplanning and strategizing help you create the best scopes to optimize and track the training sessions. Know the topics to address, the length of the session, the availability of training materials, and the credulity of the lecturers. Create an interactive real-time online training session by allowing participants to ask questions and give suggestions when necessary. Longer sessions will get participants bored. Limit the programs to about three hours with 10-minute breaks to reduce screen fatigue.

Practice etiquette. The host’s etiquette is one thing that can break or make a training program a success. The host has to set clear session rules and press accountability penalties to limit misconduct. Everyone in attendance must avoid distractions and behaviors that could affect other learners’ attention spans and listening abilities. Effective communication requires sticking to the main agenda and not wandering outside the session-specific topics. Timing should be a priority, ensuring timed sessions for the welcome, guest speaker instruction, breaks, and wrap up.

Engagement. Virtual food safety training programs offer a seamless engagement, interaction, and knowledge acquisition platform. But since there is no in-person connection, attendees can get bored and lose focus. Calling those in attendance by name fosters smooth interaction while keeping everyone alert. Using “raise hand” unmute and chat features to answer open-ended questions can boost engagement. The use of virtual tools such as surveys, polls, and whiteboards reduces screen fatigue and boosts knowledge retention while increasing engagement.

Real-Time Communication During Food Safety Training

Real-time food safety training hosts and facilitators can use two basic ways to present their programs. The best method depends on the availability of resources and everyone’s location.

In-person training sessions: These sessions offer opportunities for face-to-face interaction, which can provide greater understanding and clarity than virtual methods. The heart-to-heart, human-level interaction offers a hands-on learning experience. These sessions are more collaborative, as multiple learners can attend classes simultaneously. The person-to-person connection between learners and lecturers makes learning fun and more interactive.

Interactive online training modules. These modules offer a greater range of programs, cost-effective sessions, and the opportunity to connect and interact with people from around the world. These programs are streamed in real-time from the host/facilitator’s computer to the learners’ device. Although cost-effective, they don’t offer the same person-to-person connections as in-person training sessions.

Farrell is president of PlantTours.

The post Effective Communication in Food Safety Employee Training appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

U.S. consumers used a food delivery service over a one-month period, according to a 2023 report from DoorDash (doordash.com). “Meal kit services have grown in tandem with the overall trend toward food delivery and consumption at home,” says Paul Bradley, senior director of product marketing at TraceGains, a supply chain solutions company in Broomfield, Colo.

Social distancing measures initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of meal kit and food delivery services as consumers aimed to reduce their exposure to crowded places such as grocery stores and restaurants. After the pandemic, meal kits remained popular in light of busy lifestyles, a preference for convenience, and a desire for a wide range of recipes that cater to various dietary preferences and restrictions, says Rachel Fogle, PhD, associate professor of biological sciences, program lead for environmental science and sustainability, and director of aquaponics and hydroponics initiatives at Harrisburg University of Science and Technology in Harrisburg, Penn.

Meal kit and food delivery services also offer a convenient solution for many urban dwellers, especially in food deserts, considering transportation constraints and the proximity of grocery stores with healthy, fresh produce, Dr. Fogle says. Smartphones and mobile apps have simplified the process of ordering food and meal kits.

With the popularity of food delivery services and meal kits growing so quickly, however, food safety regulators have given little guidance regarding best practices for direct-to-consumer (DTC) or third-party delivery (TPD) services. In food delivery, this “last mile,” the means by which food is transported from a producer and packager to an actual consumer, presents unique challenges for maintaining food safety.

“Whether food is being carried by a delivery driver or conveyed by a package delivery service or other means, situations can arise in which food can be handled unsafely,” Bradley says. “In particular, concerns exist around perishable food items that must be held within safe temperature ranges, as many delivery methods don’t account for temperature verification and other traditional food safety process controls.”

Regarding meal kits, issues can surface when using non-traditional delivery channels such as mail or package delivery systems, which typically aren’t designed to provide the kinds of checks and controls required by safe food handling guidelines, Bradley says.

Greatest Safety Concerns

Due to limited regulations for DTC and TPD, as well as a lack of understanding of risks posed by these services, concerns have mounted. When food is placed in a box for shipment, it’s no longer under that establishment’s control, and delivery companies such as the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, FedEx, aren’t regulated by food safety agencies, says Donald W. Schaffner, PhD, distinguished professor, extension specialist, and current chair of the department of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. Even if these companies do guarantee delivery times, they use unrefrigerated vehicles and therefore don’t have the capacity or ability to guarantee delivery temperatures.

Temperature control of perishable goods is a top concern, says Martin Bucknavage, MS, MBA, senior food safety extension specialist in the department of food science at Penn State University in University Park, because it can result in quality issues related to spoilage and contamination by organisms such as Listeria and Staphylococcus aureus, along with the spore-forming pathogens Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium perfringens, and Bacillus cereus.

Temperature abuse becomes problematic when a shipped product doesn’t get to a consumer in a timely fashion, which could occur to a shipment being mailed to the wrong address or a consumer not being present when a product is delivered. Even if coolants are used, in some cases they may not compensate for delivery delays, Bucknavage says.

“There may be sporadic cases of foodborne illnesses from food delivery services due to one-off bad actors, but with meal kit delivery, the possibility of large outbreaks exists,” says Mitzi D. Baum, MSc, CEO of Stop Foodborne Illness in Chicago. “Studies have shown that the ingredients in meal kits don’t always stay at a safe temperature. Harmful bacteria can grow quickly in meats and seafood if left sitting on a porch, and consumers may not realize it. Refrigerated items can only be left out at temperatures above 40°F for a maximum two hours, which includes transport time.”

Tampering with food during the delivery process is another concern, Dr. Schaffner says. The platform-to-consumer delivery method introduces increased opportunities for food tampering and contamination due to additional touchpoints in the delivery process. To address this concern, more restaurants have implemented tamper-evident closures; however, studies show that using tamper-evident seals might send the wrong message to consumers (Int J Hospital Manag. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103315). “When consumers see these seals, it might send a signal raising the possibility that tampering could occur,” he says.

Personal hygiene of the individuals preparing and handling the food, as well as those delivering the food, is another concern. Most states require all restaurant workers to have a food handler’s license; however, delivery companies don’t explicitly state on their websites that any kind of food handling experience or license is required, Baum says.

In fact, some reports have highlighted concerns regarding food safety knowledge and practices among food handlers and delivery workers (PLoS One. 18(10): e0293004). “Proper hygiene practices, including hand washing and sanitization, are essential to mitigate the risk of foodborne illness,” Dr. Fogle says.

Ensuring the cleanliness of delivery vehicles is yet another aspect to address because spills and food residue can cause contamination, Dr. Fogle says. Regular cleaning can reduce this risk.

“Clearly, many companies have mastered the home delivery channel—showing that it can be done safely with great success,” Bucknavage says. “But because of lower barriers to entering the delivered meal space, some providers of home delivery meals can fly under the radar, away from inspection or other oversight. It’s up to regulators to constantly search for these less-than-compliant operations.”

Ignorance can also play a role. Some start-up businesses that have a good meal kit idea simply may not know about state, federal, and local laws and how to meet their standards, says Benjamin Chapman, PhD, department head, professor, and food safety specialist in the department of agricultural and human sciences at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

“Addressing these concerns mandates collaboration among meal kit companies, food delivery services, regulatory bodies, and consumers to establish and enforce strict standards and protocols for the safe handling, packaging, and delivery of food,” Dr. Fogle says.

Guidance Document Contains Best Practices

Although few regulations regarding DTC and TPD exist, in 2022 a Conference for Food Protection committee drafted a voluntary guidance document on best practices for food safety for these service lines. It includes advice pertaining to preventive controls, mechanisms to assess risk, recommendations for proper packaging, temperature controls, physical and chemical contamination controls, and allergen controls. The document was drafted by the Conference for Food Protection Direct to Consumer Delivery Committee, chaired by Dr. Schaffner. Committee members included representation from grocery stores, restaurants, food processors, delivery companies involved in these new delivery models, consumer and academic representatives, and state and local public health officials. Following is some insight on each practice.

Preventive controls. Food companies that include “last mile delivery,” whether DTC or TPD, should conduct thorough hazard analyses to identify potential food safety hazards at each stage of the delivery process, Dr. Fogle says. Regular verification activities, including inspections, testing, and recordkeeping, are essential to ensure the adequacy and effectiveness of preventive controls. It’s important to establish procedures for taking corrective action in response to deviations from established controls. Proper training of employees and delivery personnel are crucial for ensuring compliance with preventive control regulations and maintaining food safety standards.

Mechanisms to assess risk. Managing food safety risks requires leveraging both internal and external resources. Internal resources include self-assessment, flexibility, and response capabilities, Dr. Fogle says. Regular internal assessments—conducted through daily checklists, shift-based logs, internal reviews, and the use of third-party auditing firms for independent audits—enable companies to proactively identify and mitigate food safety risks.

Third-party auditing firms can conduct independent audits to ensure safe food practices. External experts offer impartiality during assessments, providing unbiased insights and recommendations to improve food safety practices, Dr. Fogle says. These professionals often possess specialized training in inspection techniques and root-cause investigations, facilitating thorough assessments of food safety risks. Additionally, external resources can supplement internal teams by aiding in program design, updating educational materials, and developing standard operating procedures, thereby strengthening overall food safety protocols.

Recommendations for proper packaging. Attention to each layer of packaging—outer packaging, coolant selection, and dunnage—is vital for ensuring food safety and quality during transit and delivery, Dr. Fogle says.

Outer packaging serves as insulation to maintain temperature control and prevent contamination. Companies must ensure its integrity, conduct crush tests, and provide handling instructions. Reusable packaging requires defined collection logistics and proper cleaning procedures.

Coolants, such as ice packs or dry ice, are chosen based on scientific principles and data, considering factors like transit time and temperature fluctuations. Dunnage fills voids, aids insulation, and protects contents during transportation. It shouldn’t insulate food from coolant and must maintain sanitary quality.

Temperature control. Perishable ingredients like meats, dairy, and certain vegetables must be stored at specific temperatures to prevent bacterial growth, Dr. Fogle says. During transportation, inadequate refrigeration or insulation can lead to excessive temperature fluctuation, risking food safety.

According to the guidance document, “A DTC delivery company should identify the temperature requirements throughout transport and delivery based on regulatory requirements as well as the company’s evaluation of its products, including their unique characteristics and uses … a company should account for all possible variables that may compromise temperature control. With respect to transportation and delivery, for example, some businesses conduct same day or overnight delivery and can control the longest possible delivery time (e.g., by restricting delivery ZIP codes). Companies with less control over delivery times should account for this variability.”

Physical and chemical contamination control. Materials used for packaging shouldn’t introduce contamination and should be stored in a way that maintains cleanliness. Measures should prevent leakage and cross-contamination, particularly for packages containing raw meats. Food delivery companies must be cautious when delivering non-food items alongside food items and acknowledge allergens as chemical hazards, Dr. Fogle says.

Allergen control. Providing mechanisms for consumers to identify allergies during ordering is essential. Precautions should ensure that unpackaged food items remain free from potential allergen contact throughout packaging and delivery, Dr. Fogle says. Resources such as the FDA model Food Code offer additional information on allergens and associated risks, including appendices on food allergen labeling and food allergens as food safety hazards.

More to Chew On

Additional guidance on transporting food safely can be found in FDA’s New Era of Smarter Food Safety blueprint, an initiative that focuses on leveraging technology, data analytics, and collaboration across the food industry to enhance food safety practices. This includes addressing challenges specific to meal kit and food delivery services, such as traceability, transportation, supply chain transparency, and real-time monitoring of temperature and sanitation, Dr. Chapman says.

A key component of New Era is FDA’s final rule on requirements for traceability, often referred to as FSMA 204, because it implements section 204(d) of FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). “The essence of FSMA 204, which becomes effective in 2026, is to enact strong requirements for both forward and backward traceability for certain food items, with a goal of enabling much faster outbreak response if a serious food safety event occurs,” Bradley says.

Alongside existing FDA and USDA guidance on recalls, this regulation establishes an expectation that meal kit and delivery services should maintain a trace-forward capability inclusive of last-mile consumer delivery. “Put simply, the job of meal kit providers doesn’t end when a product is handed off to a carrier or delivery driver, which has meaningful implications for record keeping and process management going forward,” Bradley says. “The industry will have some work to do in order to create the kind of transparent supply network required to meet it.”

Furthermore, the third of four core elements in the New Era blueprint, “New Business Models and Retail Modernization,” focuses on tech-enabled traceability and recognizes an evolution in the way food is produced and delivered to consumers. “FDA seeks to protect foods from contamination amid the expansion of e-commerce and other new business models,” says Sara Bratager, senior food safety and traceability scientist at the Institute of Food Technologists in Chicago.

To achieve this, FDA outlines several key initiatives in the blueprint, such as collaborating with regulatory partners, and educating delivery services and consumers on proper food handling practices, and promoting the adoption of technology to monitor risk factors and drive safe product innovation.

Shortly after the release of the New Era blueprint, FDA held a summit on e-commerce to gain insight into how foods are sold through business-to-consumer e-commerce models in the United States and worldwide. Continued efforts are illustrated through the Core Element 3 web page.

In October 2021, FDA convened an e-commerce summit. “It represented a snapshot of current understanding and best practices,” Dr. Schaffner says. “It’s still a useful resource for companies looking to quickly get up to speed with this area of the food system.”

“FDA is clearly aware of food safety issues with respect to these novel delivery mechanisms,” Dr. Schaffner continues. “But, to a certain extent, its hands are tied because they must operate under the current regulatory structure, which has some gaps with respect to these innovations.”

The Beef Industry Food Safety Council has also established best practices for DTC sales. “It’s recognized that risk is influenced by the type of product being considered and suggests that re-evaluating risk should occur each time a product profile changes,” Dr. Fogle says. “Expectations of packaging and distribution need to consider temperature control, allergens, and traceability.”

Thoughts on Proceeding

Looking ahead, Bratager has identified several areas to focus on to improve the safety of food delivered by DTC and TPD services. Existing regulations for registering food businesses often categorize e-commerce alongside traditional brick-and-mortar retail establishments. “While this classification may be suitable for some businesses, it fails to address the nuances of all e-commerce actors,” she says. “Operations such as meal kit fulfillment centers, which involve more handling and processing akin to manufacturing facilities, may fall through regulatory gaps,” she says.

Additionally, point-of-sale labeling requirements designed for in-store operations don’t adequately address the responsibility of online-to-consumer businesses to provide essential information to consumers at the point of sale, Bratager says. Clarification and guidance are needed to bridge these regulatory gaps and safeguard public health.

Furthermore, current foodborne illness tracking systems largely overlook business to consumer e-commerce categories, which limits the understanding of the risks posed by DTC and TPD services, Bratager says. For instance, the CDC’s National Outbreak Reporting System dashboard includes some restaurant settings but omits crucial categories such as “restaurant delivery” and “online grocery.” “Integrating these significant categories into foodborne illness reporting practices is essential for accurately assessing their risks and informing risk-based regulatory measures,” she concludes.

The post Food Safety During Food Delivery appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

One in five U.S. households adopted a pet during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the most recent statistics from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, highlighting the importance of safe food for dogs and cats as they become part of the family for companionship, protection, and comfort.

People increasingly want a balanced diet derived from safe, high quality ingredients for both their pets and human family members, and both types of foods are regulated by FDA. But, there are some key differences that make food quality and safety for pet food challenging says Austin Therrell, PhD, executive director of the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), a Champaign, Ill.-based nonprofit that guides state, federal, and international feed regulators with ingredient definitions, labels, and laboratory standards, adding, “Complete and balanced pet food is comparable to baby formula for humans in many ways [in that] in most cases our pets rely on the same source of food every day to meet all their nutritional needs.”

He says that any nutrient imbalances in pet food can potentially cause deficiencies or toxicities that are food safety challenges. Therefore, he says, it’s important for regulators to ensure that ingredients used in commercial pet foods have gone through the appropriate reviews to confirm that they are safe for their intended use and diet because animals have different needs at different ages.

The nutritional needs of dogs and cats also differ. “With pets mainly eating one brand of pet food that is complete and balanced, it is essential [that] all the nutrition they require for their species and life state is maintained in the product in every single batch,” he says. “There have been several instances of recalls related to nutritional toxicities or deficiencies.”

At the federal level, section 210(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines food as articles intended for food or drink for man and other animals. There are similar definitions in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations parts 117 and 507. Dr. Therrell says that, while regulations for food for humans and for other animals are closely related, there are some big differences in nutritional and labeling requirements due to the number of different types of animals.

Cross Contamination, Other Risks

Another safety risk is potential sickness, because more pets are living in homes and acting as part of the family, even sleeping with their owners. People may feed their pets at the same time they are preparing their own food, increasing the risk of cross contamination between the foods. Their close proximity as family members puts humans and their animals at risk if the pet food is contaminated, Dr. Therrell says.

If pet food were contaminated with a zoonotic pathogen such as Salmonella, humans handling the food or those who are exposed to pets that consumed it could get sick even if the pet is not showing symptoms of salmonellosis, he adds, noting that children are particularly at risk. “Regulators have to account for more transmission pathways of any contaminants or adulterants in pet food,” Dr. Therrell says. “The pet food industry has to consider many of the same risks that the human food industry does, if not more, because of the diversity of the animals consuming the products and the humans handling the products.”

Another difference between animal and human food is regulations for allergens, which do not apply to pet food. Food ingredients rarely cause allergic reactions in pets, says Marissa Herchler Cohen, PhD, area specialized agent for animal food safety at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, N.C. Allergens are also not typically a consideration in assessing exotic ingredients. They have to go through the same approval process at the FDA level with a food additive petition, be generally regarded as safe, or go through the AAFCO definition process, each of which shows the ingredient is proven to be safe for its intended use, she adds.

Imported ingredients are addressed through FSMA both in pet and human food using the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP). For countries with less stringent food safety rules than the United States, importers must evaluate their food safety system and ensure that it meets FSMA specifications. Imported ingredients from countries whose food safety systems are considered equal to or better than that in the U.S. require FSVP approval. Ways to comply with FSVP requirements include on-site audits of supplier facilities, documentation reviews, or product ingredient testing, depending on the nature of the facility, Dr. Cohen says.

Day to day, pet food producers must address different challenges depending on the type of food they are producing. Raw pet food manufacturers need to closely monitor temperature changes within their production to ensure that products do not thaw enough to create an environment where pathogens can thrive, she adds. Producers also must be careful about sourcing and storing ingredients to minimize the presence of pathogens.

Since the raw pet food industry has no kill step, there is potential for pathogens growth, Dr. Cohen says. Some raw food pet manufacturers are using methods such as high-pressure processing, a non-cooking method for destroying microorganisms that maintains the raw product. Consumers need to be made aware of the potential risks with feeding these diets and understand how to handle them safely, she adds.

States’ Roles in Labeling

Regulations for labeling pet food can be inconsistent from state to state, which is challenging for producers that ship their products to different states; they must meet the labeling requirements in each state in which their product sells. FSMA federal regulations for pet food remain the same regardless of the state where the manufacturing occurs.

Each state can adopt all, some, or none of the AAFCO recommendations for labeling. There are some rules, however, that dictate what can and cannot appear on a label. Misleading information or claims cannot appear on a label—for example, “human grade” or “human quality”—nor can drug claims that a food or ingredient has a medical benefit. “The terms ‘human grade’ or ‘human quality’ only refer to products that are ready to eat and produced under the Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations enforced by the FDA,” says Dr. Cohen. They don’t apply to raw pet food, she adds, because it generally is not ready to eat. Also, once a pet food is mixed with an ingredient that is not considered edible by humans, the end product cannot be considered “human grade,” she says.

Dr. Therrell says there is a need for additional state feed laws. Some states accept the use of ingredients tentatively approved by AAFCO, while others require them to be “officially approved.” Other states accept ingredients that are “self-affirmed GRAS” because they have qualified staff to review data.

PURR Act Aims to Streamline Regulations

Congress introduced a new act to streamline the federal regulatory process for pet food on February 15, 2024. H.R. 7380, the Pet Food Uniform Regulatory Reform Act of 2024, or PURR Act, has been widely supported by pet food manufacturers and the industry group, the Pet Food Institute, in Washington, D.C. 

The act would prohibit state governments from directly or indirectly establishing or enforcing any authority on the marketing or labeling of pet food. It would place label and ingredient approvals in FDA hands. State agriculture departments still would oversee quality inspections and product registrations.

“We are supporting federal legislation that would replace the current inefficient patchwork approach between states and the federal government with consistent national standards that are predictable, clearly defined, and encourage innovation and speed to market,” Dana Brooks, president of the Pet Food Institute (PFI), said in a statement.

Pet food makers produce nearly 10 million tons of food annually, and outdated regulations have made it difficult for pet food manufacturers nationwide to invest in research and development for new and improved products, said Rep. Jake LaTurner (R-Kansas), in a statement in February 2024 when PFI announced its support of the legislation. Rep. LaTurner, along with Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Sharice Davids (D-Kansas), Josh Harder (D-Calif.), and Steve Womack (R-Ark.), sponsored the bipartisan legislation.

AAFCO, however, has concerns about the current version of the legislation, saying it could have negative impacts on consumer protection and reduce pet food label transparency. “State feed programs are the first line of defense protecting consumers from misleading or mislabeled pet food products,” Dr. Therrell says. State regulators proactively inspect pet food labeling before products hit the market, he says, and ensure that marketing claims on the label are accurate and have scientific data to validate them. “Under the new PURR Act, this important layer of consumer protection would completely go away,” he adds.

He says there are ways to improve efficiency and bring more innovation to the market, but it needs to be done in a safe and transparent manner and requires states to remain involved.

The PURR Act also could impact more than dog and cat food producers, Dr. Cohen says. Because it is specific to food for those animals, the legislation could increase the regulatory burden for producers who make dog and cat food, as well as livestock feed or pet foods for rabbits, rodents, and other small animals. Those manufacturers would have to comply with different regulations, as would ingredient processors and suppliers to both the dog and cat food industries, as well as to producers of food for other animals.

“Though having uniform expectations for labeling and expedited ingredient approval is helpful to the industry as a whole, I think there are some unintended consequences that should be considered,” Dr. Cohen says. “There may be room for compromise.”

The post Food Safety Considerations for Pet Food appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Food delivery is entering a new era. Improvements in online platforms, triggered in large part by the COVID-19 pandemic, have made it easier than ever for consumers to order groceries and prepare food. This new accessibility means that delivery needs have increased at a rapid pace.

For companies that provide food delivery services, food safety is a top concern. Improving the efficiency and affordability of deliveries while also ensuring food safety is a complex challenge, especially as companies seek to scale their operations. To meet the challenge, a growing number of companies are relying on the tools provided by software as a service (SaaS), which is a software licensing and delivery model in which software is licensed on a subscription basis and is centrally hosted.

Embracing a New Food Safety Blueprint

As the field of food delivery was scaling up during the pandemic, FDA issued an initiative aimed at guiding the food industry in what the agency dubbed a “new era of smarter food safety.” This “blueprint” introduced four foundational principles that FDA hopes will “create a safer and more digital, traceable food system,” in part by encouraging food delivery companies to leverage technology solutions.

The four pillars proposed include:

• Tech-enabled traceability: Key to this pillar is the standardization and digitalization of the data and processes used to track the movement of food.
• Smarter tools and strategies for preventing and responding to outbreaks: FDA highlights the value of AI-driven tools for driving this component of food safety.
• Modernization of business models: Encouraging and exploring the use of innovative digital tools is highlighted as critical for bringing business models into the modern era of food delivery.
• Food safety culture: Developing strategies that help consumer to understand and use tech tools that drive greater food safety is seen by the FDA as an important step in establishing a food safety culture among businesses and consumers.

Leverage SaaS to Build New Systems

Companies seeking to implement these food safety pillars will find SaaS platforms to be invaluable tools. Essentially, these platforms give businesses access to powerful digital tools without the burden of maintaining, upgrading, or making a long-term commitment. They are developed by third-party companies that provide support and ongoing development.

Food delivery service providers can access SaaS platforms via the cloud or by integrating them into their existing systems, giving employees seamless access from essentially any location. These platforms can lead to cost savings, scalability, security, and support.

In the food delivery space, optimizing delivery processes is one of the practical applications of SaaS platforms. SaaS can integrate with delivery management tools to power delivery route efficiency. By drawing on traffic, weather, and order data, SaaS platforms can dynamically map out the most efficient routes, and by cutting down on delivery times, businesses can lower the risk that food will spoil during transport.

SaaS can also contribute to delivery optimization by facilitating enhanced customer communication. Miscommunication can lead to delivery delays that result in food spoilage. SaaS can reduce miscommunication by providing customers with easy access to communications channels and by automating the process of getting delivery updates to drivers.

Leveraging these systems for data analytics is another way to optimize delivery services, as the data gathered can be mined for insights into busy delivery zones, peak order times, driver performance, and other key metrics. By revealing inefficiencies in the delivery process and recommending changes, SaaS platforms can help companies develop more effective delivery strategies.

These platforms can also empower contactless delivery options, which minimize the risks of food contamination. By enhancing communication between customers and delivery services, SaaS can facilitate curbside pickups and lobby drop-offs. SaaS can also empower contactless payment systems.

In addition to ensuring that food is delivered with less risk of spoilage, SaaS platforms can also be used to improve driver safety by facilitating driver monitoring, which can be used to gather data on driver performance and road safety. AI-driven platforms can be used to analyze the data and develop safer routes and processes.

SaaS can also drive automated communication between delivery drivers and customers. As delivery times are updated, the system can notify customers, which allows drivers to stay focused on driving. Additionally, SaaS can be integrated with communication systems to provide drivers with hands-free communication, converting text messages to voice messages and enabling voice-activated commands.

New Levels of Flexibility

A key lesson learned from the COVID-19 pandemic is that customer needs can change rapidly and without warning as they did in the food delivery industry, in which the need for enhanced delivery capabilities and protocols increased dramatically in a very short period of time.

SaaS platforms provide companies with the versatility, agility, and efficiency to shift rapidly with evolving needs. By integrating them into current strategies, food delivery companies gain the capability to keep pace with consumer demands while also meeting key safety concerns.

Mammadov is CEO of Senpex Technology, a research and delivery service based in San Jose, Calif. He is a software development professional with more than 18 years of experience in enterprise solutions and mobile app development.

The post SaaS Solutions for Food Safety During Food Delivery appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), more commonly known as bird flu, remains a serious issue and Tom Vilsack, USDA secretary, testified at a congressional hearing on February 14 that the U.S. was close to finding a vaccine for poultry to combat the disease. “We are probably 18 months or so away from being able to identify a vaccine that would be effective for this particular (avian flu) that we’re dealing with now,” Vilsack said.

In 2023, USDA found HPAI in eight commercial flocks and 14 backyard flocks, which has impacted 530,000 poultry so far. More than 81 million U.S. poultry and aquatic birds have been killed by avian flu across 47 states over the past two years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The decision to proceed with vaccination is complex and requires everything from vaccine development to production timelines to dissemination to flocks, so there are many factors that make implementing a vaccine strategy a challenge and it takes time to deliver an effective vaccine.

Once a vaccine is found, bird owners should review the resources on managing wildlife to prevent avian influenza, evaluate their biosecurity plans, and develop a strategy to prevent any exposure to wild birds or their droppings. Vilsack noted that once a vaccine is ready, it would still take time to implement the rollout strategy and the agency is “nowhere near ready” to answer all the questions that will pop up around plans.

Vilsack also said at the hearing that his agency is concerned that other countries may restrict imports of vaccinated U.S. poultry. Most countries, including the U.S., do not recognize countries that vaccinate as free of HPAI due to concerns that vaccines can mask the presence of the disease. Therefore, they do not accept exports from countries that do vaccinate.

“We would have a circumstance where, if we vaccinated today, I think we would have a number of our trading partners saying, ‘We’re not interested in your chickens,’” he said, adding that USDA is preparing a strategy to talk with trading partners about vaccinations. “There are significant implications for conducting domestic disease surveillance, as well as compliance with international standards and bilateral trade agreements with major trading partners,” the USDA spokesperson said.

For this reason, the National Chicken Council (NCC) has concerns and serious reservations about the vaccine at this time, believing that it will seriously impact trade.

“The U.S. broiler industry is the second-largest exporter of chicken in the world, exporting about 18% of our chicken meat production, valued at more than $5 billion annually,” an NCC spokesperson says. “If we start vaccinating for HPAI in the U.S., the broiler industry will lose our ability to export which will have a significant impact on the industry, while costing billions and billions of dollars to the U.S. economy every year.”

These export losses would also have a devastating impact on thousands of family farmers who raise the birds, the NCC says. “Even if one sector (eggs, turkeys) moves forward with a vaccine, the broiler industry will be impacted as our trading partners view all poultry (egg layers, turkeys, broilers, ducks, etc.) the same,” the spokesperson added. “In addition, a vaccine will not eliminate the virus. Birds can still get HPAI and may not show signs of having the virus, which allows the virus to replicate and spread—known as masking.”

While the NCC supports ongoing discussions about a vaccination program, the organization currently supports the eradication policy of APHIS and believes that, right now, this is the best approach to eliminating HPAI in the U.S.

The post USDA Secretary Says Vaccine for Bird Flu Is Close appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Today’s industrial bakery looks much different than it did 40 years ago. Baked goods that were once mixed, proofed, shaped, and decorated manually by the baker are now meticulously produced by automated machines. Several factors compel bakeries toward automation; a growing competitive landscape and diverse consumer demands are only part of the industry-wide drive to innovate and automate.

While much of the baking process is mechanized, most bakeries today still employ manual inspectors as their core line of defense to ensure top-quality baked products that are safe to consume. Despite these production innovations, quality assurance teams face the difficult task of accurately inspecting products for brand-specific traits and detecting unwanted foreign materials at full-line speeds.

Manual inspection was much more reasonable in the bakeries of the past, which produced products at smaller volumes than today’s operations. Access to baking quality assurance experts was also different back then. Even so, relying solely on manual inspection presents more challenges than solutions for a modern industrial bakery.

Vision Inspection Technology

Many companies have started integrating vision inspection technologies to optimize product flow and help streamline final product assessment. Vision inspection systems incorporate high-speed cameras with imaging software and advanced algorithms to directly detect and measure food products for important visual traits on the production line.

Vision inspection technologies are commonly grouped into two inspection categories: final product inspection (FPI) systems and vision process control (VPC) systems.

Many early adopters of vision inspection technology used it to assess final products before packaging, helping them apply objective data to enhance their quality assurance programs. These types of vision inspection systems fall into the FPI category.

Next, bakeries began integrating automated rejection and recirculation capabilities into their FPI system to discard out-of-spec products based on programmed criteria. These criteria range from universal product traits such as overall product size, shape, and color to more detailed or brand-specific features like split height and length of a loaf of bread, topping coverage such as seeds, chocolate chips, and others.

More recently, as bakeries began adopting automated technologies to produce their products at higher volumes, processors began exploring different ways vision inspection could close the loop on their overall process control. While FPI applications could accurately assess product results, these processors needed more information to determine why their results occurred and how to correct them.

This data gap led to the introduction of VPC systems, which are typically installed at key production process stages at any point before packaging. Data visualization and real-time feedback, connected with process machinery, help enable a “smarter” manufacturing line, one in which bakers and operators can make data-driven decisions on process adjustments.

Combining VPC with FPI is how bakeries achieve 100% unbiased online inspection free from human interpretation. Through this integration, bakeries can wholly understand and control the processing capabilities of their production facility to align better with compliance standards.

How Vision Inspection Technology Helps In Baking

While each bakery is unique, there are essential steps in the baking process where vision inspection has helped companies improve quality, consistency, and safety.

Pre-baking inspection. The dough-forming process, for instance, ensures products achieve an ideal final size and shape. Take hole doughnuts, for example, which should have a uniform diameter and center. Many doughnut manufacturers utilize automated shaping equipment to place dough onto a conveyor belt and into individual product lines. Over time, however, this application can run out of alignment. Using a VPC system directly after the shaper can help the production team monitor the uniformity of dough shapers across the belt. The system objectively detects the size and diameter of the overall product and center area. If the dough shape begins to drift outside specifications, the system can alert the operator to any changes in the consistency of the process.

Similar applications have been achieved after the proofing or dough-scoring process. Several outside variables can affect dough proofing, such as the external environment (temperature and humidity), dough hydration, the amount or quality of yeast used in ingredients, and mechanical factors. Again, installing VPC capabilities after the proofing and scoring can ensure this process is happening correctly.

More bakeries have discovered uses for vision inspection technology to monitor the quality of their process (Steps 1-4). This emerging technology falls into a category called vision process control. Courtesy of KPM Analytics.

Post-baking inspection. Many mass-produced baked products enter the oven in individual lanes. Within the oven and above these lanes are individual heating elements controlled by the production operator, who oversees whether products are baked uniformly across the entire belt width. Assuming dough forming and proofing processes maintain visual standards, which are managed by VPC systems, another vision inspection checkpoint at the oven exit can monitor the baked color of each unit exiting the oven.

If the system detects a change in bake color over time—generally by evaluating the color of the outside crust of the final product—it can alert the production operator as to whether a specific lane or collection of lanes may need adjustment or repair. A manual alarm or automated control accomplishes this in an in-line rejection system. Additionally, because the FPI is analyzing products in real time, the operator can review the timeline of data to determine whether a protocol may be necessary to adjust their processes for routinely checking their oven performance.

Some baked goods have ingredients applied to the outside the product before or after baking. Examples include seeds, chocolate chips, glazes, colored seasonings, meats, vegetables, and many others, all of which come at a cost to the baking operation. As a result, ingredient and topping control is vital for managing operating costs.

Additionally, some products may have branded designs, logos, and other cosmetic features stamped onto the product at certain stages. Automated machines apply these features under tight constraints and require high repeatability. Over time and for various reasons, these applicator machines can clog, run out of alignment, or over-apply ingredients, resulting in an out-of-spec product.

Integrating a VPC system directly after applicators and product stampers can help operators keep tabs on the performance of these machines. This vision application can help companies avoid fatal errors in their process and control ingredient costs by capturing insights that may go unnoticed by human inspectors.

Food safety efforts. As with most food production processes, bakeries are susceptible to unwanted foreign objects finding their way into their products at any point before packaging. Some companies employ foreign material detection equipment—primarily metal detection X-ray systems—to identify potentially hazardous items on or within products. These methods are great for identifying dense materials, but most low-density objects, such as paper, hair, films, and like-colored objects, tend to proceed unnoticed.

Hyperspectral imaging technology used for advanced foreign body detection and classification is one of the more recent innovations in vision inspection. Hyperspectral imaging acquires images of the products at different wavelengths by incorporating spectroscopic measurement capabilities, thereby providing a better way to detect and classify foreign bodies on the outer surface of baked products. This advanced application benefits baked products with toppings, including muffins, cookies, snack cakes, frozen pizza, and others, where color inspection cannot provide the complete picture.

Artificial intelligence (AI) also has a growing role in inspection. AI models trained to identify typical defects and anomalies help companies expand their inspection capabilities while improving their ease of use. The automated learning of product features and specifications reduces complexity and promotes continuous operations, helping systems to function for longer periods of time and at pristine accuracy.

Implementing Vision Inspection Techmnology

The vision implementation process at a baking operation may seem daunting at first, but the effort put forth in the beginning will help companies achieve a faster payback in the long run. It is essential to start the planning process simply, remain patient, and choose a dependable vision inspection expert who will work closely on your objectives, which will be the cornerstones to success.

Above all else, aligning the goals of your quality assurance (QA) and production teams is essential to a favorable outcome; however, despite working closely together in a baking operation, QC and production teams have different and, at times, contrasting performance metrics. The QC team is measured on their ability to implement processes to ensure high product quality standards that meet consumer expectations. On the other hand, the production team’s focus is to maintain an efficient production process to create, package, and ship baked goods in the demanded volumes and time frames.

Many bakeries consider vision inspection technology a black box solution; Install the equipment, apply a product code, and, just like that, you have achieved 100% control of every aspect of your product line. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

The best route is to begin by considering the most critical individual traits of your products, the ones that matter most to your consumers. It may be the baked color of your cookie, the uniform dia­meter or height of your bagel, or the distribution of toast marks on your tortilla; those one or two features may be where to begin your journey. Again, input from your QC and production teams during this process is vitally important.

Remember, vision inspection technology aims to improve quality, not create waste. Setting standards too high will lead to too many rejected products, while standards that are too low will introduce too much variation in quality. Operating environments and ingredient quality can also affect the final product’s appearance. Baking during the hot summer months may yield a vastly different product than during the winter, or a flour delivery from one harvest may produce a noticeably different product than the next. If you purchase ingredients from other suppliers, take samples from those formulations and determine where any differences may occur.

Collaboration is critical at every step of the vision system integration process. All stakeholders play an integral role in the process; however, selecting a trustworthy vendor who can set realistic expectations, offer guidance, ask the right questions, and promptly respond with answers to your questions while keeping to the negotiated budget and timeline is what makes success attainable.

McGhie is business development director for vision systems at KPM Analytics, a Westborough, Mass.-based instrumentation manufacturer for the food and agricultural industries. He began his career in the bakery industry in Australia in 1987. Reach him at amcghie@kpmanalytics.com.

The post Vision Inspection Technology Can Improve Baking Quality, Safety appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

From farm to fork, food safety is a topic that everyone in the supply chain should embrace. The regulatory realities of 2011’s Food Safety Modernization Act were meant to usher in a new foundation in food safety; however, full implementation was interrupted by the pandemic, and numerous significant challenges remain in the fight for safe food. FDA launched its “New Era of Food Safety” in 2020 to refine food safety practices using technology and engaging a more holistic view of the practice of food safety.

One fundamental yet pragmatic question launched a specific key target in this new initiative: “What do people do when no one is looking?” Your company may have a great food safety plan on paper; it may have checked all the boxes. Your hazard analysis and recall plan may have been inspired by pristine, textbook examples of building a cohesive food safety plan. That’s terrific, but what happens on the production floor? What happens in the daily processing environment? What does an employee do when they see something go wrong? It’s critical to engage employees—and management—so that they feel supported in taking on food safety and dedicate themselves to following established protocols.

This is where the concept of “food safety culture” comes into play. Food safety culture is, in essence, the values, beliefs, and habits people share to ensure food is kept safe. “Culture” is a concept that requires a great deal of critical self-analysis, as well as a continued dedication to properly foster, support, and maintain it. Building a culture of food safety demands authentic buy-in from all levels of employees, including:

• Those on the front lines who realize their actions can have a direct consequence on the health and safety of their customers;
• The procurement department that feels empowered to make the right choices to get the right products and services to support food safety as a core value;
• A training coordinator who realizes food safety training is a core concept that should be featured during onboarding and in continuous training opportunities;
• The executive level, who should know that food safety can contribute to a healthy bottom line by mitigating significant risk/cost to the organization, as well as creating safe, quality products for their customers.

Everyone has a role to play in the creation and maintenance of a food safety culture in your operation. Here are four practical areas you can target to help measure the wellness of your food safety culture and to determine just how authentically everyone is connected to those values.

1. Provide continuous training: When it comes to establishing and maintaining a culture of food safety, training should be thought of as continuous and holistic in terms of your organization. As opposed to a “one-and-done” exposure in a topic, training is a way to introduce food safety concepts, as well as revisit them, evaluate them, and provide opportunities for continuous improvement. Some training considerations are:

• Education: Is training available to employees when they join your team? To embed a food safety culture into your company, all stakeholders should have a foundational understanding of food safety. A fundamental starting point is to be sure that food safety and your food safety culture is a target of your onboarding process for new employees. Who leads your food safety team and has passion for the subject? Target that individual as a key resource to introduce employees to food safety concepts, expectations, behaviors, and importance to the business.
• Collaboration: Do you provide training across departmental lines? From the C-Suite to maintenance staff to HR to production employees, the further you engage the diversity of departments and positions, the more that you are universalizing the realities of what food safety requires to be proactively engaged in it: behaviors, standards, goals, materials, and tools. This also provides an opportunity to reaffirm the consequences of not thinking comprehensively about food safety in your operation from all levels and from each person’s role.
• Effectiveness: How frequently are trainings offered throughout the year? Who do you assign to attend those trainings? Do your trainings reflect your findings in your risk analysis? There is no magic number in terms of training opportunities; more important than frequency is the question of efficacy and applicability. Start with those targets first to help understand how your training program needs to be engaged for your operation, and to push the advancement of knowledge with the advancement of application and practice.

2. Give regular feedback: The efficacy of food safety culture training can also be tough to measure once you have trainings in place. To holistically understand how effective your training programs are, consider implementing a program of assessments, conversations, and organizational involvement by personnel. For example, consider conducting regular “interviews” with employees, or distributing questionnaires pertaining to safe quality food (SQF), hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP), key performance indicators (KPIs), and good manufacturing practice (GMP) policies. These tools can help to create opportunities for informal and impromptu mini-training sessions. These meetings are also a chance to build awareness of new procedures and to have open conversations between employees and managers on existing practices.

Within an organization, these are also occasions to empower employees to make informed decisions and become confident in their decision making. Asking them to share any concerns helps to set an understanding that if they see something that concerns them, they should feel comfortable saying something. Active conversations and feedback loops should be supported as parts of daily culture, not treated as isolated events.

3. Build on audit results. Internal inspections should be part of regular compliance when it comes to meeting standards for third-party audits. Similar to conducting feedback loops, having internal inspections can do quite a bit to set a regular, pressing view of food safety. Reviewing warehouse maintenance; cleaning; SQF, HACCP, and GMP-related topics; safety topics; and training materials keeps employees engaged and consistently looking for process improvements. Assigning teams of trained personnel equipped with prepared checklists to thoroughly evaluate each site and ensure that employees are doing what they say they are doing and then sharing that information with the organization creates a chance to take the pulse of commitment and focus. For example, consider how reviewing audit policy documentation each month to ensure it is up to date, verified, and validated would assist with reaffirming food safety practices. Organizations can often help build up more predictable results in their external audits by using the same questionnaires in the internal inspections and keeping those as usable frameworks to judge efforts throughout the year.
4. Take stock of objectives for food safety and celebrate wins. It helps to know what your targets are going to be and how to structure them. Focusing on areas that are most applicable to your facility and production type can elevate those areas for attention and measurement. Preventive controls, standard operating procedures (SOPs), KPIs, corrective actions, and core hazards are great starting points for establishing a program of action and focus. These key areas also provide numerous opportunities to talk about other food safety issues and build conversations that will inevitably lead to other targets.

To help meet these objectives and measurements, remember to clearly create and delineate employee incentive programs that demonstrate behaviors that will adding to the culture of food safety. Forming a cadence of recognition and rewards is a way to celebrate wins for the company while also applauding employee involvement and commitment. These rewards can include interpersonal affirmations, giveaways, postings around the office, annual recognition, and award events.

The more you emphasize the importance of a food safety culture, the more you highlight an appreciation for doing the right thing and the more you reaffirm that food safety is top of mind and that everyone can make a difference.

Johnson is director of safety and corporate compliance and Bartkowiak is vice president of corporate responsibility and development at Nelson-Jameson. They can be reached at w.johnson@nelsonjameson.com and m.bartkowiak@nelsonjameson.com, respectively.

The post Tips to Improve Your Company’s Food Safety Culture appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Unsafe food containing harmful bacteria, viruses, parasites, or chemical substances can cause more than 200 different diseases, ranging from diarrhea to cancers. Worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 600 million people—almost one in 10—become ill after eating contaminated food each year, resulting in 420,000 deaths and the loss of 33 million healthy life years.

Food safety, nutrition, and food security are closely linked. Unsafe food creates a vicious cycle of disease and malnutrition that affects infants, young children, and the elderly and sick in particular, according to WHO reports. “In addition to contributing to nutrition and food security, a safe food supply also supports global, national, and local economies as well as safe and fair trade, while enhancing the diffusion of sustainable development at large,” says Anne Gerardi, senior manager for the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) public–private partnerships and capability building programs at The Consumer Goods Forum in Paris, France. The globalization of food trade, a growing world population, climate change, and rapidly changing food systems all impact food safety.

What’s Working

Several approaches to addressing food safety in developing countries have shown success and promise in recent years. These approaches are often rooted in and center around preventive actions and interventions based on science-based standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, transport, and storage of food, says Tracy Fink, PCQI, director of scientific programs and science and policy initiatives at the Institute of Food Technologists in Chicago.

Some of the most effective methods have included capacity-building and training programs, public–private partnerships, and a farm-to-fork approach. Providing training and capacity-building programs for food producers, processors, and regulators is critical to global food safety. These programs equip individuals and organizations with the knowledge and skills needed to implement food safety practices developed in countries with more advanced scientific experience.

Additionally, training helps bridge the food safety knowledge gap in emerging regions and ensures that best practices are understood and followed across the food chain. This training can cover various aspects of food safety, including good hygiene practices, hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) systems implementation, laboratory testing, and risk assessments, Fink says.

Collaboration among government agencies, private sector stakeholders, and non-government organizations (NGOs) is also an effective way to improve food safety, Fink adds. Public–private partnerships can provide resources to promote better practices throughout the nodes of the food supply chain.

A holistic “farm-to-fork” approach considers food safety at each part of the supply chain, from production and processing to distribution and consumption, Fink says. This comprehensive approach also helps identify potential biological, chemical, and physical hazards and risks at various points, allowing for targeted and preventive interventions and risk management.

WHO and FAO Efforts

In 2019, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and WHO jointly developed the food control system assessment tool to assist member states in evaluating the effectiveness of national food control systems. The tool’s main objective is to provide a harmonized, objective, and consensual basis to analyze the performance of a national food control system, says Markus Lipp, PhD, senior food safety officer at the food systems and food safety division of the FAO in Rome. Countries can use the tool to identify priority areas of improvement and plan sequential and coordinated activities to reach expected outcomes. The tool is based on the Principles and Guidelines for National Food Control Systems adopted by the Codex Alimentarius, often referred to as Codex, an international food safety standard-setting body established by FAO and WHO.

These organizations also work with member countries to develop capacity-building programs, provide technical assistance, and promote best practices to address global food safety issues, Fink says. Furthermore, they support and promote research and data collection to better understand and mitigate food safety risks worldwide.

Challenges Remain

As part of their efforts to improve and enhance their food supply’s safety, some countries, including China, Brazil, Thailand, India, and Mexico, have embraced HACCP. Despite these efforts, Fink says that challenges persist and more work needs to be done in implementing and enforcing HACCP in developing countries. One of the main culprits is a lack of communication among various partners, including between regulatory authorities and the private sector. Addressing this communication gap is crucial to overcoming hurdles and ensuring the effective adoption of HACCP principles.

According to Steven Jaffee, PhD, a lecturer in the department of agricultural and resource economics at the University of Maryland in College Park, data and knowledge gaps have contributed to a long legacy of underinvestment in domestic food safety capacity in low- and middle-income countries. Structural issues also represent an impediment. In many such countries, informal food operators and distribution channels still predominate for perishable foods—and likely account for a majority of serious cases of foodborne illness. “Yet, most of this fragmented informal sector is beyond the effective reach of limited government regulatory capacity,” he says. “Furthermore, food systems are experiencing rapid changes in the face of demographic, dietary, and income changes. As food systems transform, food safety problems have become more varied and complex, in many instances overwhelming nascent capacity.”

Contaminants from various sources continue to bring challenges as well. Microbiological pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria are among the most prevalent. Aflatoxins—contaminants produced by certain molds found in soil—affect crops such as grains and nuts. Preventing outbreaks is challenging due to a lack of infrastructure for proper food handling and storage, inadequate food safety laws, or insufficient resources to enforce existing regulations, says Greg Heartman, vice president of product management at TraceGains, an organization based in Westminster, Colo., that connects food brands and suppliers worldwide. Additionally, some regions have limited access to clean water, which exacerbates the problem of microbial contamination.

Chemical contaminants also pose a potential threat, Fink says. Examples include pesticide residues, heavy metals (e.g., lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, and nickel), and industrial chemicals. These contaminants can originate from natural sources such as soil, rocks, minerals, and water, and may also result from inadequate local regulation on hazardous chemicals, improper pesticide use, and pollution.

Furthermore, biological toxins represent another concern. Fink notes that certain naturally occurring toxins, such as cyanogenic glycosides in cassava and toxic alkaloids in certain wild plants, can contaminate foods if they aren’t properly processed or prepared.

Tackling Food Safety Risks

Dr. Jaffee believes that a different approach is needed to better tackle food safety risks in the informal sector. This would entail:

• Local action, centrally guided. The bulk of interventions, both regulatory and facilitative, needs to come at the municipal level, and the drive for safer food in the informal sector should be embedded in strategies for healthy, sustainable, and resilient cities. National agencies would still have important roles such as mobilizing resources and providing guidelines and technical backstopping.
• Multi-sectoral action. Standalone food safety interventions may not be the best option. Rather, improving the safety of food in the informal sector can be better achieved and better resourced when bundled with interventions to improve nutrition, increase access to potable water and improved sanitation, improve environmental management, and upgrade urban infrastructure.
• Rebalancing the use of sticks and carrots. Strict enforcement of regulatory provisions is unlikely to be effective vis-à-vis most informal sector food operators. Rather, gradual and continuous enhancements in practices and/or facilities should be sought. Whenever feasible, greater effort should go into engaging and enabling informal market operators—that is, finding ways to strengthen both their incentives and their capacity to carry out their food businesses in ways that are much more likely to yield safe food. It would be beneficial for cities or local branches of ministries to employ as many food hygiene/food business advisors as they do regulatory inspectors.

Opportunities for Improvement

GFSI maintains that working in silos, which is the status quo for a vast majority of organizations, remains a predominant obstacle to resolving food safety issues. Furthermore, intergovernmental organizations remain reluctant to partner with the private sector and are failing to see the private sector and organizations convening the private sector, like GFSI, as a solution. Instead, they perceive it as an obstacle, Gerardi says.

Developing a favorable ecosystem for safer food by focusing on infrastructure, people, and supply chains that will enhance food safety capabilities is a key to solving those issues. Developing robust, transparent, and delivery-oriented regulatory and national food control systems focused on policy and enforcement is also paramount and a key component of those capabilities, Gerardi adds.

Along these lines, Heartman says that improvements should come about through a combination of government initiatives, international aid, and private sector solutions. “Governments can enact and enforce stronger food safety legislation, while international organizations can provide the necessary technical and financial support,” he says. “Countries can gain better governance by negotiating supportive solution deals with global providers. Public–private sector partnerships can introduce innovative software solutions and technologies that help embed food safety into the food supply chain while supporting and solving the global problems that buyers and suppliers face.”

Fink agrees. “Governments, international organizations, academia, non-government organizations, public–private partners, and food science community have to work together to protect public health, enhance food security and food safety, and facilitate economic development,” she says. Furthermore, encouraging individuals and organizations that are independent of the government and businesses and operate to pursue various social, cultural, political, environmental, and humanitarian goals is crucial in shaping and influencing public policy around food safety.

Preventive Measures

Today, focus has been put on proactively preventing problems rather than reactive remediation once undesirable outcomes have been observed. “This has been instituted in many areas for decades and is the current dogma of human health,” says Dr. Lipp.

Similarly, a systems approach to food safety is proactive, aimed at preventing food safety problems from occurring in the first place. Once food is rendered unsafe, it typically can’t be reused and must be discarded. “Such a reactive approach is unsustainable economically as well as from an environmental perspective,” he adds.

Some developing nations are beginning to adopt a more proactive approach to food safety. Initiatives such as the African Food Safety Network promote sharing of information and best practices. “Shifting from reactive to proactive quality controls and food safety management in developing countries requires capitalizing on software while changing mindsets through education,” Heartman says. “The key is building a culture of food safety at all levels of the supply chain, particularly between buyers, manufacturers, and suppliers.”

The capacities and capabilities required to engage in a proactive, preventative food safety approach are higher than those that are focused on a reactive approach, and investments are urgently needed to confer the knowledge needed to engage in this approach, by proactively designing the agrifood system for the delivery of safe food, Dr. Lipp says.

Newer Developments

In November 2023, the New GFSI GMaP toolkit was launched. The program allows food business operators (FBOs) easy access to a suite of tools to enable self-assessment of food safety proficiencies based on Codex.

Focused on primary production and manufacturing activities, the free toolkit includes a food safety checklist and associated protocols, along with training and competency frameworks, which are intended to support the multiple ways that FBOs can signify their overall food safety capabilities to enhance their ability to trade internationally or domestically.

Some months earlier, in April 2023, GFSI and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to improve food safety and sustainable food systems in Africa. This MOU is an integral part of GFSI’s new capability strategy approach and contributes to the U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy through Feed the Future, a whole-of-government platform that works to end hunger and malnutrition and build sustainable, resilient food systems, Gerardi says.

Under the signed MOU, USAID and GFSI will support small and medium food businesses in Africa to improve their capabilities via more robust food safety management systems by connecting them to technical, educational, and financial resources.

Potential businesses will be identified to participate in a pilot phase of GFSI’s new capability building framework, with a particular focus businesses owned by women, Gerardi says. The framework will focus on facilitating regulatory compliance, information sharing, and market access. Additionally, the partnership will support new research on food safety value chains and provide guidance on measuring the framework’s contributions to Sustainable Development Goals linked to food safety.

The post Food Safety in Developing Countries appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.